Methodists affirm gay marriage.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Yes you did. You said: “I agree with the right to discriminate on the issue of HOLY matrimony.”

Do you see that word “discriminate” there? You believe there’s something you call “god” (albeit a belief you can’t justify with reason). You also it seems think this god gets to decide what is and isn’t “holy”. These supposedly holy positions are you tell us sufficient to discriminate against gay people enjoying the same rights as heterosexual people.

That’s called homophobia. According to your own claims and assertions, you therefore worship a homophobic god.

I was merely wondering how you manage to think yourself to be non-homophobic while simultaneously believing there to be a god who’s right about everything and who you tell us is homophobic.

  Unfortunately the idea of you or anyone deciding to change the definition of holy matrimony commonly by all held to be between a man and a woman vaguely comical and by an atheist bent on weaponising homosexuality for the purposes of church bashing overtly comical.

[Roses]

Times change and religion needs to change with them. There is a lot in the Bible that isn't acceptable in this day and age, like woman being treated like chattels.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

   Unfortunately the idea of you or anyone deciding to change the definition of holy matrimony commonly by all held to be between a man and a woman vaguely comical and by an atheist bent on weaponising homosexuality for the purposes of church bashing overtly comical.

Yes I knew you’d just flat out lie again rather than address the problem you’ve given yourself (you always do), but the problem remains nonetheless. No-one is trying to change your definition of “holy” matrimony. It’s your definition, so you stick with it if you like. The problem though is that you also think there’s a god who decides what’s holy, and in this case it’s homophobic.

I don’t care what you bellieve – it’s all nonsense on stilts. But I still don’t see how you can claim to be non-homophobic while at the same time worship an all-wise god who is.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Times change and religion needs to change with them. There is a lot in the Bible that isn't acceptable in this day and age, like woman being treated like chattels.

Not everything has to change and certainly not at the pace of an impatient antitheist.

[Gordon]

Evangelism is the prime mission of the Church. I wouldn't expect governmental registrars to turn fees into evangelistic support.

Do you even think before you reply?

Anchorman has addressed your apparent suggestion in your #40 that "Churches should perform civil marriage": here in Scotland that isn't permitted (see Anchorman's #48).

But in your #40, that I partially quoted above, your full sentence was "In the meantime can you address my suggestion that Churches should perform civil marriage as defined by law and the moneys raised directed to evangelism. Since the implication here is that you are suggesting that clerics perform civil marriages, and we now know that in Scotland at least they can't, why are you suddenly introducing secular "governmental registrars" into a point about evangelism?

You make no sense, Vlad.

[Aruntraveller]

Not everything has to change and certainly not at the pace of an impatient antitheist.

Yes, but the point is marriage even Holy Matrimony has not remained fixed on what is viewed acceptable for it to take place. Go back to the 15th C. and you were thought foolish to marry for love. It was about finances, property and wealth - how unusual for the Church to concern itself with such earthly, base matters.

Why make an exception on the grounds of homosexuality now. We all are aware that the institution changes. Your support of retaining it in some form speaks to a prejudice held surely?

PS You keep liking to introduce random stereotypes but I'm not an impatient antitheist, I really don't know how you can square the circle of claiming to support marriage even of the holy matrimony kind, but then say it's ok to deny it to people (not me, don't want it, never will want it) who deem it important for themselves and their families, as many gay people do.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,



I don’t care what you bellieve –⁸ it’s all nonsense on stilts.

Funnily enough gaslighters in historical municipalities used stilts. Now hat put me in mind of gaslighting?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you even think before you reply?

Anchorman has addressed your apparent suggestion in your #40 that "Churches should perform civil marriage": here in Scotland that isn't permitted (see Anchorman's #48).

But in your #40, that I partially quoted above, your full sentence was "In the meantime can you address my suggestion that Churches should perform civil marriage as defined by law and the moneys raised directed to evangelism. Since the implication here is that you are suggesting that clerics perform civil marriages, and we now know that in Scotland at least they can't, why are you suddenly introducing secular "governmental registrars" into a point about evangelism?

You make no sense, Vlad.

I wasn't aware that the world ended at the Carter Bar Gordon.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

Funnily enough gaslighters in historical municipalities used stilts. Now hat put me in mind of gaslighting?

Avoidance noted. So anyway - about you worshipping a homophobic god (using your own definition of "holy") while at the same time claiming to be non-homophobic yourself. Who's right about that then - you or your god? 

[Gordon]

I wasn't aware that the world ended at the Carter Bar Gordon.

Is it 'evasion Saturday' by any chance?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Is it 'evasion Saturday' by any chance?

The Church in Scotland doesn't allow it's clergy to do civil weddings..............and?

I only make a suggestion.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

The Church in Scotland doesn't allow it's clergy to do civil weddings..............and?

I only make a suggestion.

So about you worshipping a (according to your own assertions) homophobic god while claiming to be non-homophobic yourself...

...which of you is correct about that would you say?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

Avoidance noted. So anyway - about you worshipping a homophobic god (using your own definition of "holy") while at the same time claiming to be non-homophobic yourself. Who's right about that then - you or your god?

You are just putting words in people's mouths. Believing that guys should be able to marry is homophobic? How?
Believing that the definition of HOLY matrimony doesn't change on the whim of people weaponising homosexuality is homophobic? How?

[bluehillside Retd.]

Vlad,

You are just putting words in people's mouths.

No, I’m just reflecting your own words back to you and you don’t like how ugly they are.

Believing that guys should be able to marry is homophobic? How?

No-one has said that.

Believing that the definition of HOLY matrimony doesn't change on the whim of people weaponising homosexuality is homophobic? How?

No-one has said that either.

Again:

1. You believe there to be something you call “god”. Yes?

2. You believe this god to be morally inerrant. Yes?

3. You believe this god determines what is and isn’t “holy”. Yes?

4. You believe that one of the positions this god has decided to be holy is that homosexual people should be denied holy matrimony, but heterosexual people should not. Yes?

5. You understand that discriminating on the ground of same-sex attraction is homophobic. Yes?
 
6. You worship this god. Yes?

7. You claim to be non-homophobic. Yes?

So, once again – who’s right about this then: you or your god?

Incidentally, there is a way out for you here – you need to be a theist and an anti-theist: essentially, “I still think there’s a god but, but I really wish I was wrong about that”.

You’re welcome.   

[Gordon]

The Church in Scotland doesn't allow it's clergy to do civil weddings..............and?

I only make a suggestion.

Then your suggestion that clergy perform civil marriages is flawed (here in civilisation anyway).

[Roses]

Not everything has to change and certainly not at the pace of an impatient antitheist.

It does have to change if it is WRONG like not allowing gays to have a religious marriage if they so wish.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Vlad,

No, I’m just reflecting your own words back to you and you don’t like how ugly they are.

No-one has said that.

No-one has said that either.

Again:

1. You believe there to be something you call “god”. Yes?

2. You believe this god to be morally inerrant. Yes?

3. You believe this god determines what is and isn’t “holy”. Yes?

4. You believe that one of the positions this god has decided to be holy is that homosexual people should be denied holy matrimony, but heterosexual people should not. Yes?

5. You understand that discriminating on the sole ground of same-sex attraction is homophobic. Yes?
   
6. You worship this god. Yes?

7. You claim to be non-homophobic. Yes?

So, once again – who’s right about this then: you or your god?

Incidentally, there is a way out for you here – you need to be a theist and an anti-theist: essentially, “I still think there’s a god but, but I really wish I was wrong about that”.

You’re welcome.   

I am not settled on this and you have less skin in this issue than you would have your performance suggest but you have to admit no where is gay holy matrimony mentioned in the bible or anywhere else for that matter.
Matrimony refers universally to a contract involving a man and a woman and that was it. A harmless label up until weaponisation by certain people. Now to me the argument that Christians cannot claim copywrite over the term marriage is well made. But to expect an antitheists view to be snapped to by God or others is a matter of linguistic totalitarianism. In other words, Why should we accept antitheistic ruling on what is holy.

That isn't supporting guys that is just wishing to punk the Church.

Now about our skin in the game. I am married to a lady and you have too. We have therefore no experience of being a gay Christian considering marriage and since this is a matter between the individual and God logically an atheist has the least understanding of the process and probably doesn't care about personal feelings in the matter anyway.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

It does have to change if it is WRONG like not allowing gays to have a religious marriage if they so wish.

They can have a religious wedding in a range of churches which as the thread title suggests has increased somewhat.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Then your suggestion that clergy perform civil marriages is flawed (here in civilisation anyway).

Meaningless nonsense. If you believe that the law was settled you would never campaign for change.

[Stranger]

I am not settled on this and you have less skin in this issue than you would have your performance suggest but you have to admit no where is gay holy matrimony mentioned in the bible or anywhere else for that matter.
Matrimony refers universally to a contract involving a man and a woman and that was it.

This is the same bible that tells you where to get and how to treat your slaves, and whose god character commits, and orders others to commit, genocide and other crimes against humanity, that one, yes?

Christians generally don't commit genocide or keep slaves any more, so why cling to the homophobic view of matrimony?

A harmless label up until weaponisation by certain people. Now to me the argument that Christians cannot claim copywrite over the term marriage is well made. But to expect an antitheists view to be snapped to by God or others is a matter of linguistic totalitarianism. In other words, Why should we accept antitheistic ruling on what is holy.

You don't have to do or believe anything. You can believe what you want but if you think "holy matrimony" should be denied to homosexual couples, that's discrimination - even if you blame it on the god you believe in.

[Anchorman]

Evangelism is the prime mission of the Church. I wouldn't expect governmental registrars to turn fees into evangelistic support.

   



Can't argue with that.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This is the same bible that tells you where to get and how to treat your slaves, and whose god character commits, and orders others to commit, genocide and other crimes against humanity, that one, yes?

Christians generally don't commit genocide or keep slaves any more, so why cling to the homophobic view of matrimony?

You don't have to do or believe anything. You can believe what you want but if you think "holy matrimony" should be denied to homosexual couples, that's discrimination - even if you blame it on the god you believe in.

You are categorising historic slavery an historic warfare with the historically universal definition of marriage.
Not a good comparison.

[Gordon]

Meaningless nonsense. If you believe that the law was settled you would never campaign for change.

Do you plan to actually discuss what you suggested earlier (in #40) or do you just plan to wriggle and evade?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Do you plan to actually discuss what you suggested earlier (in #40) or do you just plan to wriggle and evade?

TO BE HONEST IVE FORGOTTEN WHAT IT IS YOU THINK I'M EVADING.

[Stranger]

You are categorising historic slavery an historic warfare with the historically universal definition of marriage.
Not a good comparison.

Because you don't like it? If you're perfectly free to ignore some parts of the bible (explain away, re-interpret, or whatever you want to call it) why cling to others when it's clearly discriminatory?